[squeak-dev] Re: [Cuis] Cuis
keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Jan 22 05:14:32 UTC 2010
> Keith, if you still didn't understood my message, let me elaborate.
> 1. All your ideas/arguments about techical issues is highly rational.
> 2. But instead of using power of arguments, and looking for
I proposed a workable compromise immediately after Andreas' original
email, it was ignored!!!!
There is no compromise, you aren't providing me with a workable
solution. I can't use trunk, the trunk process is not managing
anything of interest or use to me or my client because I was providing
a) tools that trunk cant load and
b) and tools that are managed outside of trunk,
Since anything outside of trunk is ignored as a possible solution,
because you still have your monolithic blinkers on, and the board is
still driven by the idea that "oh my goodness Pharo has a new image
and we dont".
You are forgetting that in Bob you have a viable "extreme programming
style continuous integration development platform", when in Pharo they
don't, but Bob is ONLY viable IF YOU USE IT.
When you have a project manager whose goal is to produce an image with
fancy fonts (lol), rather than a "comprehensive extreme programming
capable development platform", you are going to produce conflicting
You are all so wrapped up in hacking trunk, you aren't the slightest
bit interested in moving forward on the tools. Sure Andreas wants a
package manager, on his terms only though. I cant port my production
images to trunk easily, and when 3.11 is released, I could spend 2/3
months porting my stuff, but since you lot wouldn't even do me the
courtesy of starting with 3.10-build, you make it harder for me. You
are also probably going to pick a different package management system
so all my current package definitions will have to be redone from
scratch, any work I do or have done on tools has been discarded by you
I rejoined squeak-dev and started the fight again, because I suddenly
realised that you had actually left me in a position where I had no
way forward at all, I had thought I could move to pharo, until I
actually tried their image, ugh, what a disaster (OmniBrowser) and
guess what, all my package definitions will have to be redone from
Anyhow in six months time the client is going to say, "what shall we
do next" and I will end up saying, why don't you get someone else to
do it in python or whatever you like, because squeak is not a viable
platform any more, nor is pharo.
The viability of the platform is entirely bound up in the politics,
and the ability of the community to collaborate and share stuff more
than the technical side of things. Witnessing one individual overrule
that the way forward is a hacking away unplanned process, to produce
an incompatible image, without any tools being provided for us to use
in our work, is damaging for the viability of squeak as a professional
development platform. Then it appears that there isn't the will in the
community to develop, provide, support and USE the tools we need to
do a professional tested job.
The current focus of the community as endorsed by the board is on
hacking at trunk which is an irrelevant task as far as we are
concerned since our starting image is basically arbitrary because we
use an automated build, 3.8 works fine for us. Cuis is an attractive
target as anything because it is small and fast. (but it has no tools
However now that the "release-team" is hacking at trunk, rather than
providing a working process and tools which we could adopt in-house to
do a good professional job for our clients. Squeak ceases to be an
interesting platform because it hasn't got any continuous integration
tools, it has no vision for such tools, and those it has got have just
been discarded by the community without a second thought.
Now if I continue to develop these tools for my use only, while you
are all hell bent on building trunk and doing everything is exactly
the opposite way that is of any actual use, using either no tools or
other tools that are not compatible with my tools. I will not and
cannot compete, you win, and my client will end up back with python
where they started.
Juan has it right, his vision is to produce "the best kernel he can",
but not on any account to interfere with the users of the kernel and
what they might want to do with it. This frees me up to implement "a
grand vision", without having it trashed at a moments notice, by
someone else coming along with a lesser vision.
My client chose squeak because of the potential and the open
collaborative dynamics of the community that they saw on irc that were
interested in tools, and extreme programming approaches, particularly
release often, and test always. If I use BOB to build and regression
test my code it only makes sense if the seaside team also uses Bob to
build and regression test their code and the same goes for magma etc
Those dynamics and collaborative dynamics have now gone, as has the
interest in tools and its a case of what Andreas says goes, and what
Andreas says is we are going to produce a 3.11 image come hell or high
water without tools, without regression testing and without a rapid
release cycle integrating carefully planned and proven projects which
are separately published. Neither the squeak board or the trunk
developers are doing anything to make squeak a first class development
platform that is developed daily using continuous integration and
extreme programming tools and techniques.
There is this new 3.11 image promised down the line, but its not
developed with our needs in mind, it isn't developed with the tools we
want to use, it isn't tested against the packages we want to use yet,
and uncle Tom Cobbly (anyone) can change an API at the drop of a hat.
Oh and it will be a year until the subsequent release.
The board is not providing a compromise basis either, since it refuses
to provide "terms of reference".
> s, you choosen to fight with everyone,
I am only virtually fighting against the impossible situation you have
put me in, and the complete lack of thinking going on here. To be
clear once more, I can build an production image on any base image, so
the trunk image itself is irrelevant. What is relevant is the process
by which the 3.11 image is developed on an ongoing basis, and the bug
fixes that are published against individual releases. If I choose 3.11
as the basis for a project I want to know that bug fixes will be
provided for THAT image, not for trunk2, the client wants to know that
bug fixes are available for an image that has a bug found in it, not
an image that we have to wait 18 months for.
I am also fighting against those who don't bother communicating. For
example Craig where are you, you are as responsible for this mess as
anyone else. Andreas nor the board didn't email me for 2 months to ask
for a progress update. You will see I mellow somewhat as people who
enter into a conversation with me, I mellow. Elliot talks sense, and
But no matter how much sense they make, no compromise is being
offered, because you still see the future of squeak as an image
release, and I see it as a development platform and series of
processes that need tools (which don't care about the image). While
the board puts the power into Andreas' hands to dictate the future of
squeak, there is no future of squeak the development platform, there
is only a 3.11 image, big deal.
> defending your position, up to the point, that it is not really
> matters, who is right or wrong , and in what they right or wrong.
> You just subbornly keep fueling a conflict, which nobody, except you
> want to have.
While you continue to use the argument "the end justifies the means"
you are picking the fight. Just because no one stands up to you,
doesn't mean it is an acceptable attitude to have. The fact that "the
end" in this case is to divert valuable resources into an minimally
relevant hole called "trunk".
Plot the number of users of images derived from 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, and
3.10 see how it falls. 3.8 still has the most users, 3.11 will have
about 20 users max by the time you have finished.
Like I said "Terms of Reference" are important, but a new image
developed without tools is not.
The deliverable of squeak, is a published image, AND a toolset for
building and deriving distribution images, AND up to date package
definitions for all packages, AND a Bug Tracker that is used to
publish Bug fixes against said published image.
You are right I don't expect any compromise to be possible. Andreas
has it nailed up so there isn't any possible. But at least this way
people might actually think...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev